Hunt mode - unrealistic exahaustion

[Erwin]

Yes, in RT one can pause every few seconds if desired to micro-manage units to act in a far more sophisticated/complex manner than when one has to plan and make moves that (hopefully) will not get you units killed for a full 60 seconds.

Respect for folks who can play RT and never pause.  But, I can't see how one can play anything larger than a small scenario in RT without a lot of pausing.

 

 

[DougPhresh]

I can't imagine trying to clear woods without pausing.

Still, a tweaked Hunt command that allows for a cautious advance without exhaustion would be a welcome change. I disagree that it could be "too" useful and totally replace Quick or Assault, commands that I find indispensable. A cautious, readied posture (and accompanying animation) would make it less efficient than  Move for routine movement even without artificially penalizing exhaustion. In contact with the enemy, moving relatively slowly in line is less useful than either Assault or the minimized exposure of Quick.

[Erwin]

I would call that command "SCOUT" so that players don't have to add in numerous waypoints having to change the unit's stance at each waypoint and also pausing at each waypoint.  ie:  Let the AI control how the units scouts in the most efficient manner.

[Bulletpoint]

10 hours ago, Erwin said:

I would call that command "SCOUT" so that players don't have to add in numerous waypoints having to change the unit's stance at each waypoint and also pausing at each waypoint.

You mentioned this a couple of times. My advice would be to not get too hung up about making very elaborate chains of orders for scouting. You don't need to change stances. Just quick move your scouts to next piece of cover with a view and let them sit there for the rest of the turn (if playing WeGo). Then next turn, repeat.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[domfluff]

Couple of thoughts from the above:

- In the modern titles the soldiers are carry a lot more kit, and will tire out more. Unrealistic? Possibly, but I'm not surprised they tire out faster than in the WW2 titles.

- Move is a really useful command. It's the only movement command where they'll also recover exhaustion. It's not a command to use when you're expecting contact - they'll change their next move order to Quick, which is often not appropriate - but it's very useful for getting about the place. They're also pretty attentive when moving - upright and slow enough to spot things, mines and enemy contact. I definitely wouldn't use it when the chance of contact is high, but if you have a lot of ground to cover on the foot, and there's a low (but non-zero) chance of contact, then I'm fine with it. I would pay close attention to what the result of contact will be though.

- Hunt does protect them slightly better against incoming fire. Going to ground will present a lower cross-section, and will give them the best chance to react.

 

Recently, I've been Hunting less and Move-ing more, as well as making more use of Fast. Hunt is great for any move where you're happy to be stopped at any point. This means it's absolutely the best move to make in woods, for example, but terrible for entering buildings - stopping in the middle of the street is a bad idea, and you can't control when contact is going to be made.

Fast is best for when the movement takes priority over everything else, and you need to get to that position without compromise.

Quick can actually be something of an odd one out - it's hard to make a solid case for why you'd move Quick-ly, since they won't be able to fight effectively, and they won't prioritise movement, so it's neither one thing nor the other.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

- Move is a really useful command. It's the only movement command where they'll also recover exhaustion. It's not a command to use when you're expecting contact - they'll change their next move order to Quick, which is often not appropriate - but it's very useful for getting about the place.

I will never understand why people keep using the MOVE command. Just use QUICK. Gets you there much faster, with not that much fatigue, and fatigue has nearly zero impact anyway. When I play PBEM and I see my opponent's infantry off in the distance walking along at a snail's pace, I know I'm going to win. Hasn't failed me yet.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

- Move is a really useful command. It's the only movement command where they'll also recover exhaustion. It's not a command to use when you're expecting contact - they'll change their next move order to Quick, which is often not appropriate - but it's very useful for getting about the place.

To each his own. But I will never understand why people keep using the MOVE command. Just use QUICK. Gets you there much faster, with not that much fatigue, and fatigue has nearly zero impact in this game anyway. Unfortunately.

When I play PBEM and I see my opponent's infantry off in the distance walking along at a snail's pace, I know I'm going to win. Haven't been wrong about that yet, and I don't even play meeting engagements where it's a footrace to get to the objectives.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[Bil Hardenberger]

33 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

To each his own. But I will never understand why people keep using the MOVE command. Just use QUICK. Gets you there much faster, with not that much fatigue, and fatigue has nearly zero impact in this game anyway. Unfortunately.

When I play PBEM and I see my opponent's infantry off in the distance walking along at a snail's pace, I know I'm going to win. Haven't been wrong about that yet, and I don't even play meeting engagements where it's a footrace to get to the objectives.

Quick is very tiring for support weapon teams... for infantry not so much as you have said.  But for support teams, move is the better alternative if you have long distances to travel (having transport for those units can be essential on large maps).

Best method for moving is to mix it up... short quick rushes mixed with hunt and with a lot of listening halts.. but hunt is especially important if you are cresting a rise or entering terrain that you suspect might harbor enemy units.  In the below image I moved faster through terrain I felt was reasonably safe and increased the unit's security at the end (switched to hunt) when moving out of their sheltering terrain towards possible danger (Note the two overwatching teams following behind).

Edited February 19, 2020 by Bil Hardenberger

[7thGalaxy]

I wonder whether for CMx3 a slightly more nuanced system is needed; A movement command that just acts to chose the speed of the unit, and a 'state' that you can perform that move in. 

So you might have 3 'states'; Stop on contact, retreat on contact, engage on contact.  If you used a 'walk' move command with the first 'state' you'd have something like current hunt, if you wanted to just peek over a ridge with a vehicle and then pull back asap if you see something, the second would be useful.  The third for an assault - or something like clearing woods.  How successfully the unit carries out the order would be a matter of the current tiredness/training/experience/suppression as expected.

This would seem to increase fidelity without increasing workload too much. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by 7thGalaxy

[MikeyD]

Out of curiosity I just threw together a quick-and-dirty test. 'Hunt' moving infantry in a straight line  across a flat map.

• First test: CMFI US infantry squad on a cool day across default (mostly grassy) terrain. They hunted past the 1/2 kilometer mark before 'Tiring' showed up. They were a full 870 meters across the map before 'tired' was displayed.
• Second test: CMFI US infantry on a hot day across rocky terrain. They didn't show 'tiring' until they passed 430 meters. The got 'Tired' past the 700m mark.
• Now for the killer course. CMSF2 US infantry squad (full body armor) on a very hot day 'hunt' moving across sand. Bam! 250 meter before tiring. Half the distance of no-body-armor inf on a cool day. The 'tired' label pop up after another 200 meters. Again, half the distance of light inf with ideal weather and terrain.

It may be we've got our bad impression of 'hunt' command largely from playing CMSF2, which is the most punishing for infantry. Well, maybe not the worst. I just now tried extreme cold and deep snow ground conditions. 'Tiring' at just 200m. 'Tired' at 300m

[Bil Hardenberger]

1 minute ago, MikeyD said:

Out of curiosity I just threw together a quick-and-dirty test. 'Hunt' moving infantry in a straight line  across a flat map.

• First test: CMFI US infantry squad on a cool day across default (mostly grassy) terrain. They hunted past the 1/2 kilometer mark before 'Tiring' showed up. They were a full 870 meters across the map before 'tired' was displayed.
• Second test: CMFI US infantry on a hot day across rocky terrain. They didn't show 'tiring' until they passed 430 meters. The got 'Tired' past the 700m mark.
• Now for the killer course. CMSF2 US infantry squad (full body armor) on a very hot day 'hunt' moving across sand. Bam! 250 meter before tiring. Half the distance of no-body-armor inf on a cool day. The 'tired' label pop up after another 200 meters. Again, half the distance of light inf with ideal weather and terrain.

It may be we've got our bad impression of 'hunt' command largely from playing CMSF2, which is the most punishing for infantry. Well, maybe not the worst. I just now tried extreme cold and deep snow ground conditions. 'Tiring' at just 200m. 'Tired' at 300m

It is definitely dependent on the amount of weight they are carrying, so yeah, good observations.

12 minutes ago, 7thGalaxy said:

I wonder whether for CMx3 a slightly more nuanced system is needed; A movement command that just acts to chose the speed of the unit, and a 'state' that you can perform that move in. 

So you might have 3 'states'; Stop on contact, retreat on contact, engage on contact.  If you used a 'walk' move command with the first 'state' you'd have something like current hunt, if you wanted to just peek over a ridge with a vehicle and then pull back asap if you see something, the second would be useful.  The third for an assault - or something like clearing woods.  How successfully the unit carries out the order would be a matter of the current tiredness/training/experience/suppression as expected.

This would seem to increase fidelity without increasing workload too much. 

I like it, a poor-man's SOP.  Let's get a petition together.   

[DerKommissar]

I find ASSAULT is a good choice for advancing into hostile territory. It rarely tires out the troops, because they can take a breather between bounds. It's faster than MOVE, and safer than QUICK.

My problem with HUNT: my troops will often keep HUNTing, even after 7.92mm bullets zipped past their heads. It takes a second or so for them to drop, presenting tall bunched up targets for enemy ambushers. Does anyone else experience this, is this normal?

I don't understand why SLOW is so damn exhausting. I often need to wait a couple of minutes for sappers to rest, before they can crawl another 10 meters.

[Erwin]

38 minutes ago, 7thGalaxy said:

A movement command that just acts to chose the speed of the unit, and a 'state' that you can perform that move in. 

This is the solution I am hoping for.  CM already features vehicles that will automatically slow down when crossing difficult terrain (breaking fences, going thru woods etc.).  So, in the game one may as well move vehicles FAST or QUICK all the time (when you do not actually need them to move SLOW or on HUNT).

42 minutes ago, 7thGalaxy said:

Stop on contact, retreat on contact, engage on contact. 

This sort of SOP would help a great deal.  Currently, units on HUNT will stop if fired on, or there is a nearby explosion, or if they see an enemy (in their covered arc).  If this happens at the start of a WEGO move they are usually KIA at the end of 60 seconds.  These days I always use HUNT with HIDE as that can often keep them alive.  It would be very helpful to have a command where instead of simply hiding, the scout would SLOW move back to a safer location.  

 

4 hours ago, domfluff said:

Hunt is ... terrible for entering buildings

This is interesting as entering buildings is usually where I do use HUNT.  My SOP is to attempt to suppress the building first, then QUICK or FAST move the assaulting force adjacent to the entry point with a 5-10 second PAUSE, followed by a HUNT command to actually enter the building.  The idea is that if there is enemy inside, I want the assaulting force to stop adjacent to the building and fire into it.  I do not want them QUICK or FAST moving into a building where there is a viable enemy.

Comments?  Am curious how other players assault a building.

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

• Second test: CMFI US infantry on a hot day across rocky terrain. They didn't show 'tiring' until they passed 430 meters. The got 'Tired' past the 700m mark.
• Now for the killer course. CMSF2 US infantry squad (full body armor) on a very hot day 'hunt' moving across sand. Bam! 250 meter before tiring. Half the distance of no-body-armor inf on a cool day.

Was it the increased temperature or the body armour that made the difference?

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

My problem with HUNT: my troops will often keep HUNTing, even after 7.92mm bullets zipped past their heads. It takes a second or so for them to drop, presenting tall bunched up targets for enemy ambushers. Does anyone else experience this, is this normal?

It's a known issue; at least I see it happen often. Sometimes, infantry will duck down quite fast after shots go past them, but at other times, they will keep walking around even after several bursts of MG.

[MikeyD]

It could be argued their 'mission' is to eyeball the enemy. Going to ground once rounds start whistling overhead is something conscripts, green or broken troops would do. QB players tend to select 'veteran' troops or higher and fanatics in order to keep them from breaking. A downside of that is... they don't break.

[Bulletpoint]

14 hours ago, MikeyD said:

It could be argued their 'mission' is to eyeball the enemy. Going to ground once rounds start whistling overhead is something conscripts, green or broken troops would do. QB players tend to select 'veteran' troops or higher and fanatics in order to keep them from breaking. A downside of that is... they don't break.

One difference between green and veteran troops in real life is that the veterans are quicker to hit the ground when taking incoming fire. That's how they survive to become veterans.

Also, in the game I have found no link between troop quality and their reaction time when moving using HUNT. I usually play regular troops +0 +0 morale and leadership, so no fanatics here.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[Anxel Torrente]

6 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I usually play regular troops +0 +0 morale and leadership

Why don't you do changes in the soft factors?

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

On 2/19/2020 at 5:26 PM, DerKommissar said:

I don't understand why SLOW is so damn exhausting. I often need to wait a couple of minutes for sappers to rest, before they can crawl another 10 meters.

Depends of course on the fitness and conditioning of the individual soldier but a low crawl - body flat on the ground, no forearm and lower leg rest - in kit is one of the most exhaustive movement methods.

Its also a quite effective body/conditioning workout.  

[Bulletpoint]

45 minutes ago, Anxel Torrente said:

Why don't you do changes in the soft factors?

I think regular +0 is a good balance between having troops that are decently capable but not infallible. Also it saves me and my opponent time that we don't have to tweak troop quality. I find it gives more a focus on tactics and it's also more realistic. Instead of dividing troops into cannonfodder category on one hand and supermen on the other.

[BornGinger]

@BulletpointIt can sometimes be interesting to do some tests and give a green squad the high attitude about fighting and a +2 leader and give a veteran or fanatic squad a -2 leader and see who succeeds best.

I sometimes give platoon leaders the veteran experience and +1 leader quality to hopefully be able to get artillery support quicker.

Edited February 21, 2020 by BornGinger

[General Jack Ripper]

On 2/19/2020 at 8:39 AM, Bulletpoint said:

When I play PBEM and I see my opponent's infantry off in the distance walking along at a snail's pace, I know I'm going to win. Haven't been wrong about that yet, and I don't even play meeting engagements where it's a footrace to get to the objectives.

If it's not a footrace, then the speed of movement has no correlation to success.

Maybe you should play more capable opponents, or maybe your opponent shouldn't be moving his infantry in an easily viewable fashion.

Either way, using the Move command is not an indicator of failure.

You've got some strange sticking points.

[Pelican Pal]

I've yet to find a good reason for standard infantry to not use quick almost constantly. They can cover quite a lot of ground without tiring and move will give your opponent some advantage if they manage to spot them. Which given the vagaries of the CM spotting system isn't totally unlikely.

Although the only area where moving fast is a requirement is meeting-engagements. Which, unless sufficiently large, are largely determined on who becomes the "attacker".

[Bud Backer]

I think without a discussion of map size, battle type, and general strategy it’s impossible to have a convincing commentary on how “useless” Move is and how one can do everything using Quick. I can’t have my units move all over the map using Quick. They will get tired.  I use Quick a lot, it’s incredibly useful but it has its limits.

[Bil Hardenberger]

16 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

I've yet to find a good reason for standard infantry to not use quick almost constantly. They can cover quite a lot of ground without tiring and move will give your opponent some advantage if they manage to spot them. Which given the vagaries of the CM spotting system isn't totally unlikely.

Although the only area where moving fast is a requirement is meeting-engagements. Which, unless sufficiently large, are largely determined on who becomes the "attacker".

In my CMSF 2 BETA AAR against @Baneman I used quick move for my unconventional fighters to attempt to redeploy to a position several hundred meters away... they got tired and then exhausted very quickly, then they became easy targets (bottom of the post at that link)... that ended their deployment and really took them out of the fight.  Not all formations are created equally.. some are more fit, some carry less gear than others, but all will tire eventually, some much sooner than others.

Use quick move as much as you want, but keep a close eye on your unit's condition.. when it starts to deteriorate it can go downhill very fast.  

Bil

Edited February 24, 2020 by Bil Hardenberger